File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2003/heidegger.0309, message 267


Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 06:48:26 +0100
Subject: Re: Einstein
From: michaelP <michael-AT-sandwich-de-sign.co.uk>


on 22/9/03 5:12 am, John Foster at borealis-AT-mercuryspeed.com wrote:

> There is no
> intuition of 'implicit order or wholeness' since the 'feeling' or
> 'intuition' - if the later exists at all would have to correspond to an
> object.

John, wahtever the beliefs and faiths of scientists-qua-humans concerning
the (judian) existence of objects corresponding to their concepts, the
'objects' of modern physics do not correspond to Judian objects at all; they
are constructs that satisfy certain conditions of their unveiling, discovery
(apparatuses, observational systems,
instruments-as-Bachelardian-'materialised theories', etc); i.e., they are
the sum of their revealed (through experiment, observation) effects (their
trace vis-a-vis the measuring/observational equipments). I.e., they are
relations (between the observer/observation gear and the observed mediated
and even produced by the conditions of their presentation. Modern
science-qua-science is not concerned with the description and prediction of
alraedy given (data) 'things', 'objects' so much as with the production of
concepts within an ever-changing ;mode of theoretic production'.

Thus, if one were to attempt to think 'wholeness' (ta panta) in the modern
scientific manner one would not have to 'look for' some 'object' to which it
corresponds; instead, one could produce the concept of wholeness that could
reveal itself under certain observational or experimental set-ups
(apparatuses, etc) through its traces and interactions with the apparatuses,
i.e., materially-theorised.

Just a thought

regards

michaelP



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005